Warren has sunk her chances with the Indian thing- funny how one misstep will soon her while certain others lie their asses off with no consequences. Biden would be the boring old choice, but any fucking thing would be better than another Clinton run. Except Gillibrand. The Dems can't afford to fuck it up by another diversity pick, especially if Trump is off the ticket and an untainted Republican running.

I'd actually like to see Inslee get on the ticket; he's a nice guy who makes the appropriate progressive noises while remaining mostly pragmatic. Plus I gave the man money, and like any good American voter, I expect a return on investments.

Old_ones wrote: ↑
TBH I don't really know enough about Inslee to have an opinion on him. Having been a governor is a definite advantage for a presidential candidate though, so there is that.

Inslee was the House Rep for the swingish WA 1st District for six terms. He piggybacked on Dubya's unpopularity and Obama's popularity quite a bit during those years, and was a vocal, but judiciously so progressive during his tenure. Since taking over the Governership from Gregoire (also a very successful governor) he has combined an increasing presence on the national scene with a good focus on his WA constituency. He has initiated or joined a lot of anti-Trump actions (he has been a fairly high-powered attorney) in Federal court.

He ran in the blanket primary for the gubernatorial race in 1996, and while he was defeated, he did fairly well with 10% of the vote on his first run. This, combined with his subsequent US House and WA Gov experience makes me think that he is a canny, and upcoming member of the Dem group.

He has alienated nobody, he has been very successful in the last couple of decades, and he is immensely presentable. He has judiciously engaged with hot issues in the last decade or so, and I think he knows where he wants to go and how to get there. As one of his constituents in WA I would be very happy to see him rise to very high office, either directly to 1600 Pennsylvania, or via a replacement for Patty Murray in the Senate. I think the latter is less likely, though - Murray (who is fairly powerful) isn't ready to step down, and Inslee is 67. I think it's next year or 2023 at the latest.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Warren has sunk her chances with the Indian thing- funny how one misstep will soon her while certain others lie their asses off with no consequences. Biden would be the boring old choice, but any fucking thing would be better than another Clinton run. Except Gillibrand. The Dems can't afford to fuck it up by another diversity pick, especially if Trump is off the ticket and an untainted Republican running.

I'd actually like to see Inslee get on the ticket; he's a nice guy who makes the appropriate progressive noises while remaining mostly pragmatic. Plus I gave the man money, and like any good American voter, I expect a return on investments.

The thing with Warren is that it wasn't even a misstep on her part. She actually has Native American ancestry, albeit not much, and in a way that doesn't count according to tribal rules. She never had any form of special legal or economic treatment for her ancestry claim, as far as I know. In a saner political world the whole thing would have been met with shrugs.

Her misstep was being baited by Donald Trump into trying to answer his insults, and so falling prey to the rabid Social Justice crowd which classified her as an Evil White Woman trying to "steal" oppression points.

Indeed the shenanigans made it clear that the concept of "identity" in the SocJus is a mess and riddled with contradiction. Apparently identity is "socially constructed", but it's also due to legal norms, or visible phenotype, or remote ancestry, or simply a matter of consensus, and can be given or revoked more or less at will by the SocJus crowds.

Caine has gotten away with claiming to be Totally Native despite being very Caucasian-looking, according to her own words, and so being unlikely to be much more Native than Warren. Rachel Dolezal is seen as an Evil White Woman stealing POC status, even though she strongly identified with the African-American community but people of partial African-American ancestry who "passed" and identified as white (Anatole Broyard, George Herriman) are reclaimed as Oppressed People of Color, even when they wanted nothing to do with the African-American community.

The SocJus is all about how identity is only "socially constructed", so ancestry shouldn't really matter, how people treat you should be the key. Yet a "drop" of non-white blood makes you a POC, while whites can never be socially constructed as POC. Unless that "drop" is do not recognized by some social body as being enough, as in the case of Warren. However "traitor" POCs like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Jamila Bey are identified as supporters of white supremacy and so not really oppressed and actually "socially white".

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
The thing with Warren is that it wasn't even a misstep on her part. She actually has Native American ancestry, albeit not much, and in a way that doesn't count according to tribal rules. She never had any form of special legal or economic treatment for her ancestry claim, as far as I know. In a saner political world the whole thing would have been met with shrugs.

Her misstep was being baited by Donald Trump into trying to answer his insults, and so falling prey to the rabid Social Justice crowd which classified her as an Evil White Woman trying to "steal" oppression points.

Haha. You say that it was not a misstep on her part and then you say she let herself get baited by Trump. So.... she did misstep. Anyone who would let Trump bait them is making a misstep. Seriously. You are self contradictory.

Warren is a joke to anyone who is not strongly on the left. Greg Gutfeld has a great line... he says "I have more native American in me than she does.... and my name is Gutfeld!" Haha.

Warren has a trail of things where she reported she was Native American. She listed herself as Cherokee in a Native American cookbook, and she is listed as Native American in some documents from her days working in a Uni.

At most she is something like 1/64 Amerindian and that includes native people from South America. She is basically about as white as you can get. My own daughters are more Indian than she is (my wife had a grandmother that was Native American).

Did you watch that really cringy live-stream she did where she talked to her fans in her kitchen. She had some tiny number of followers (like 10 or 20) and she pretends to like beer. Fucking hilarious.

John D wrote: ↑Haha. You say that it was not a misstep on her part and then you say she let herself get baited by Trump. So.... she did misstep. Anyone who would let Trump bait them is making a misstep. Seriously. You are self contradictory.

I expressed myself badly. What I meant was that she didn't do anything objectively morally or legally wrong, and her mistake was a matter of poor political strategy in a polarized political world. If she hadn't replied to Trump's trolling she would have been fine and nobody would have cared. Trump has, objectively, cheated on his wives repeatedly, which is at least morally murky, and has had several legal issues, but nothing sticks because he's good at making noise to distract people and claim that anyone else isn't better than him.

John D wrote: ↑Haha. You say that it was not a misstep on her part and then you say she let herself get baited by Trump. So.... she did misstep. Anyone who would let Trump bait them is making a misstep. Seriously. You are self contradictory.

I expressed myself badly. What I meant was that she didn't do anything objectively morally or legally wrong, and her mistake was a matter of poor political strategy in a polarized political world. If she hadn't replied to Trump's trolling she would have been fine and nobody would have cared. Trump has, objectively, cheated on his wives repeatedly, which is at least morally murky, and has had several legal issues, but nothing sticks because he's good at making noise to distract people and claim that anyone else isn't better than him.

Okay... yes. I agree with you. What surprises me most is that she thought it would be a good thing to show that she is 1/64 Amerindian. Somehow she thought this would make her look good to the public. Haha. I think she is a clever and seasoned politician... yet she made such a funny blunder.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
AOC is a socialist, and a general nutbar. She takes the same murky approach to facts that Trump does. I don't believe she's poorly intentioned, but she is a ditzy distraction.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
The thing with Warren is that it wasn't even a misstep on her part. She actually has Native American ancestry, albeit not much, and in a way that doesn't count according to tribal rules.

Rules which are rooted in the idea that the Dawes Rolls are somehow fair and definitive rather than a top-down federally driven process which the tribes perpetuate at their own peril. (FWIW: My kids have ancestors on said rolls; my familiarity with the topic is more than passing.)

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑She never had any form of special legal or economic treatment for her ancestry claim, as far as I know. In a saner political world the whole thing would have been met with shrugs.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Her misstep was being baited by Donald Trump into trying to answer his insults, and so falling prey to the rabid Social Justice crowd which classified her as an Evil White Woman trying to "steal" oppression points.

If liberalism loses b/c of our alliance with that crowd, well, we sort of had it coming.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Indeed the shenanigans made it clear that the concept of "identity" in the SocJus is a mess and riddled with contradiction. Apparently identity is "socially constructed", but it's also due to legal norms, or visible phenotype, or remote ancestry, or simply a matter of consensus, and can be given or revoked more or less at will by the SocJus crowds.

Not even going to bring up the obvious elephant in the room here, but she was born a bull.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Have the Democrats provided an FAQ on why perimeter defence is immoral when it incorporates physical obstacles rather than just “best wishes”?

I love the smell of straw in the morning.

There are already border fences in place, many of which were built during Obama's terms.

Trump's "wall" is impractical, poorly designed, overly expensive and won't have as much of impact as he promised. The "Mexico will pay for it" part has already been dropped, without Trumpers kick up too much of a fuss.

The political fight over the wall is purely Trumpian virtue-signalling. He was offered a decent political compromise, and rejected it just to try to motivate his base.

There are physical barriers on the portions of the border where physical barriers make sense. Elsewhere border agents and drones with cameras are far more cost effective. Building a wall in these areas will always be fucking stupid and require condemning privately owned land to boot. Hooray for property seizure! What a great conservative thing to do.

Donald's grandpa, Frederick Trump, was active in the times of the Old West, and he was rather dishonest, too.

Before leaving Seattle, Trump bought 40 acres (16 ha) in the Pine Lake Plateau, twelve miles (19 km) east of the city, for $200, which was the first major real estate purchase of the Trump family.[3]:59 In Monte Cristo, Trump chose a plot of land near the later train station that he wanted to build a hotel on, but could not afford the $1,000-per-acre fee to purchase it. Instead, he filed a Gold placer claim on the land, which allowed him to claim exclusive mineral rights to the land without having to pay for it,[3]:60 even though the land had already been claimed by Everett resident Nicholas Rudebeck. At that time, the U.S. Land Office was known to be corrupt and frequently allowed such multiple claims. Despite the placer's claim providing Trump no right to build any structure on the land, he quickly bought lumber to build a new boarding house and operate it similarly to the Dairy Restaurant

According to Blair's account, when Trump left for the Yukon, he had no plans to do actual mining.[3]:81 He likely travelled the White Pass route,[3]:83 which included the notorious "Dead Horse trail", so named because drivers whipped animals of transport until they literally dropped dead on the trail and were left to decompose. In the spring of 1898, Trump and another miner named Ernest Levin opened a tent restaurant along the trail. Blair writes that "a frequent dish was fresh-slaughtered, quick-frozen horse".

Despite the enormous financial success, Trump and Levin began fighting due to Levin's drinking. They broke up their business relationship in February 1901, but reconciled in April. Around that time, the local government announced suppression on prostitution, gambling and liquor, though the crackdown was delayed by businessmen until later that year. In light of this impending threat to his business operation, Trump sold his share of the restaurant to Levin and left the Yukon.[2][3]:90–91 In the months that followed, Levin was arrested for public drunkenness and sent to jail, and the Arctic was taken over by the Mounties.[3]:92 The restaurant burned down in the White Horse fire of 1905.[12] Blair wrote that "once again, in a situation that created many losers, [Frederick Trump] managed to emerge a winner."[3]:93

Donald's grandpa, Frederick Trump, was active in the times of the Old West, and he was rather dishonest, too.

Before leaving Seattle, Trump bought 40 acres (16 ha) in the Pine Lake Plateau, twelve miles (19 km) east of the city, for $200, which was the first major real estate purchase of the Trump family.[3]:59 In Monte Cristo, Trump chose a plot of land near the later train station that he wanted to build a hotel on, but could not afford the $1,000-per-acre fee to purchase it. Instead, he filed a Gold placer claim on the land, which allowed him to claim exclusive mineral rights to the land without having to pay for it,[3]:60 even though the land had already been claimed by Everett resident Nicholas Rudebeck. At that time, the U.S. Land Office was known to be corrupt and frequently allowed such multiple claims. Despite the placer's claim providing Trump no right to build any structure on the land, he quickly bought lumber to build a new boarding house and operate it similarly to the Dairy Restaurant

According to Blair's account, when Trump left for the Yukon, he had no plans to do actual mining.[3]:81 He likely travelled the White Pass route,[3]:83 which included the notorious "Dead Horse trail", so named because drivers whipped animals of transport until they literally dropped dead on the trail and were left to decompose. In the spring of 1898, Trump and another miner named Ernest Levin opened a tent restaurant along the trail. Blair writes that "a frequent dish was fresh-slaughtered, quick-frozen horse".

Despite the enormous financial success, Trump and Levin began fighting due to Levin's drinking. They broke up their business relationship in February 1901, but reconciled in April. Around that time, the local government announced suppression on prostitution, gambling and liquor, though the crackdown was delayed by businessmen until later that year. In light of this impending threat to his business operation, Trump sold his share of the restaurant to Levin and left the Yukon.[2][3]:90–91 In the months that followed, Levin was arrested for public drunkenness and sent to jail, and the Arctic was taken over by the Mounties.[3]:92 The restaurant burned down in the White Horse fire of 1905.[12] Blair wrote that "once again, in a situation that created many losers, [Frederick Trump] managed to emerge a winner."[3]:93

Donald's grandpa, Frederick Trump, was active in the times of the Old West, and he was rather dishonest, too.

Before leaving Seattle, Trump bought 40 acres (16 ha) in the Pine Lake Plateau, twelve miles (19 km) east of the city, for $200, which was the first major real estate purchase of the Trump family.[3]:59 In Monte Cristo, Trump chose a plot of land near the later train station that he wanted to build a hotel on, but could not afford the $1,000-per-acre fee to purchase it. Instead, he filed a Gold placer claim on the land, which allowed him to claim exclusive mineral rights to the land without having to pay for it,[3]:60 even though the land had already been claimed by Everett resident Nicholas Rudebeck. At that time, the U.S. Land Office was known to be corrupt and frequently allowed such multiple claims. Despite the placer's claim providing Trump no right to build any structure on the land, he quickly bought lumber to build a new boarding house and operate it similarly to the Dairy Restaurant

According to Blair's account, when Trump left for the Yukon, he had no plans to do actual mining.[3]:81 He likely travelled the White Pass route,[3]:83 which included the notorious "Dead Horse trail", so named because drivers whipped animals of transport until they literally dropped dead on the trail and were left to decompose. In the spring of 1898, Trump and another miner named Ernest Levin opened a tent restaurant along the trail. Blair writes that "a frequent dish was fresh-slaughtered, quick-frozen horse".

Despite the enormous financial success, Trump and Levin began fighting due to Levin's drinking. They broke up their business relationship in February 1901, but reconciled in April. Around that time, the local government announced suppression on prostitution, gambling and liquor, though the crackdown was delayed by businessmen until later that year. In light of this impending threat to his business operation, Trump sold his share of the restaurant to Levin and left the Yukon.[2][3]:90–91 In the months that followed, Levin was arrested for public drunkenness and sent to jail, and the Arctic was taken over by the Mounties.[3]:92 The restaurant burned down in the White Horse fire of 1905.[12] Blair wrote that "once again, in a situation that created many losers, [Frederick Trump] managed to emerge a winner."[3]:93

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I note you sidestepped the morality question with an attempt at a pragmatic argument.

The morality of the wall is very questionable, especially with it's impact on native wildlife. Pragmatically, there's better ways to spend the money. One of my childhood friends is a Border Agent; he'd like more money, which would ensure his 27 years of experience are retained. But the wall is something visible, which appeals to the room temperature IQ crowd.

Sunder wrote: ↑
There are physical barriers on the portions of the border where physical barriers make sense. Elsewhere border agents and drones with cameras are far more cost effective. Building a wall in these areas will always be fucking stupid and require condemning privately owned land to boot. Hooray for property seizure! What a great conservative thing to do.

Get fucked.

Yeah, that too. There's many reasons to oppose the wall, but because "Build the Wall!" is a catchphrase that weak-minded people can comprehend and repeat, that's what they're going with. Nice.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I note you sidestepped the morality question with an attempt at a pragmatic argument.

The morality of the wall is very questionable, especially with it's impact on native wildlife. Pragmatically, there's better ways to spend the money. One of my childhood friends is a Border Agent; he'd like more money, which would ensure his 27 years of experience are retained. But the wall is something visible, which appeals to the room temperature IQ crowd.

You could only be disingenuous to suggest Pelosi is morally outraged by the threat to the Yellow Spotted Mouse Warbler. I mean children are dying ....

According to DHS officials, the funding would cover the construction of 215 miles of “wall system” on the southern border.

What that system would include is a matter of debate.

But DHS officials say it could cover the replacement of “dilapidated” fencing, new wall sections and secondary wall structures, as well as roads and lights for Border Patrol agents.

The “wall system” also includes sensor technology that would enable agents to detect movement coming toward the wall, “starting the clock” for officials to respond before anyone starts to try to scale it.

DHS officials said that of the 215 “linear miles,” well over a hundred miles would be brand new wall in places where there is no barrier now. The majority of this construction would be in the Rio Grande area, specifically the Laredo sector, along the Texas border with Mexico.

DHS officials said those 215 miles would be the most “critical” locations that need to be addressed. The total cost of a wall could be upwards of $25 billion – additional funding in the future could go toward other locations.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I note you sidestepped the morality question with an attempt at a pragmatic argument.

Because your moral argument is a straw man. Nobody thinks border fences are inherently immoral, except a small minority of loons, maybe. Indeed the Obama administration built some of those fences.

It appears you failed to account for the Mouse Warbler variable (relevant for Republican rather than Democrat wall initiatives). We foreigners always get tripped by local foibles.

I
I
I — >

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
The morality of the wall is very questionable, especially with it's impact on native wildlife. Pragmatically, there's better ways to spend the money. One of my childhood friends is a Border Agent; he'd like more money, which would ensure his 27 years of experience are retained. But the wall is something visible, which appeals to the room temperature IQ crowd.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I note you sidestepped the morality question with an attempt at a pragmatic argument.

The morality of the wall is very questionable, especially with it's impact on native wildlife. Pragmatically, there's better ways to spend the money. One of my childhood friends is a Border Agent; he'd like more money, which would ensure his 27 years of experience are retained. But the wall is something visible, which appeals to the room temperature IQ crowd.

You could only be disingenuous to suggest Pelosi is morally outraged by the threat to the Yellow Spotted Mouse Warbler. I mean children are dying ....

According to DHS officials, the funding would cover the construction of 215 miles of “wall system” on the southern border.

What that system would include is a matter of debate.

But DHS officials say it could cover the replacement of “dilapidated” fencing, new wall sections and secondary wall structures, as well as roads and lights for Border Patrol agents.

The “wall system” also includes sensor technology that would enable agents to detect movement coming toward the wall, “starting the clock” for officials to respond before anyone starts to try to scale it.

DHS officials said that of the 215 “linear miles,” well over a hundred miles would be brand new wall in places where there is no barrier now. The majority of this construction would be in the Rio Grande area, specifically the Laredo sector, along the Texas border with Mexico.

DHS officials said those 215 miles would be the most “critical” locations that need to be addressed. The total cost of a wall could be upwards of $25 billion – additional funding in the future could go toward other locations.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Was the 600 miles of Democrat wall equally apocalyptic?

Of course not.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
How will the additional 100 miles of Trump extension (off the $5 billion) be qualitatively different?

The qualitative difference is that the first 600 miles were not the result of a bait-and-switch electoral strategy respecting how much wall, whether it's actual wall, who pays for the wall, and how much we propose to spend on new wall...

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Was the 600 miles of Democrat wall equally apocalyptic?

Of course not.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
How will the additional 100 miles of Trump extension (off the $5 billion) be qualitatively different?

The qualitative difference is that the first 600 miles were not the result of a bait-and-switch electoral strategy respecting how much wall, whether it's actual wall, who pays for the wall, and how much we propose to spend on new wall...
galaxy.... brain meme.png

Which major defence projects are you using as a project quality benchmark?

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Was the 600 miles of Democrat wall equally apocalyptic?

Of course not.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
How will the additional 100 miles of Trump extension (off the $5 billion) be qualitatively different?

The qualitative difference is that the first 600 miles were not the result of a bait-and-switch electoral strategy respecting how much wall, whether it's actual wall, who pays for the wall, and how much we propose to spend on new wall...
galaxy brain meme.png

There is a point where spending money at the border is pointless. Obama and W Bush beefed up border security and illegal crossings have been dropping steadily since. This may be due to those measures but is also due to the conditions in Mexico improving.https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ty/580186/
If the US wants to get serious on stopping illegal migrants then they should do what it seems no one is talking about. Start going after employers that are employing illegals. Once the jobs start drying up, most of the migrants will stop coming and the border enforcement will have a much more manageable number of people to deal with. Businesses in the US have knowingly employed illegals for years because there hasn't been a push to stop them and the few times they are confronted by the authorities there is either no consequences or a slap on the wrist. Case in point, Trump or at least his companies have been knowingly hiring illegals, some years ago that they actually brought over from Poland and very recently, where Trump's golf course went as far as supplying illegals with fake green cards.
If there really was a national emergency and not just a phony issue to keep Trump's "base" happy they could start there.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Was the 600 miles of Democrat wall equally apocalyptic?

Of course not.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
How will the additional 100 miles of Trump extension (off the $5 billion) be qualitatively different?

The qualitative difference is that the first 600 miles were not the result of a bait-and-switch electoral strategy respecting how much wall, whether it's actual wall, who pays for the wall, and how much we propose to spend on new wall...
galaxy.... brain meme.png

Which major defence projects are you using as a project quality benchmark?

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Was the 600 miles of Democrat wall equally apocalyptic?

Of course not.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
How will the additional 100 miles of Trump extension (off the $5 billion) be qualitatively different?

The qualitative difference is that the first 600 miles were not the result of a bait-and-switch electoral strategy respecting how much wall, whether it's actual wall, who pays for the wall, and how much we propose to spend on new wall...
galaxy.... brain meme.png

Which major defence projects are you using as a project quality benchmark?

Was a direct payment model ever specified?

Yes, yes it was.

I’m seeing as many (or more) references to ‘payment in kind’ than direct deposit to a bank account.

The immediate cash flow concern over this sum seems an odd thing to obsess over given the policy thrust. Which was the material reassertion of nationalist based confidence - in conjunction with partially fixing a pragmatic problem. It’s the former which sticks in the throat of progressives.

Trump and McConnel are really hoping they can saddle Dems with blame for the shutdown that started when they still controlled both houses of Congress over an issue they chose not to do anything about for the two years they had to come up with a plan.

Trouble is people who aren't following the news at all will just blame the President by default, because he's the President, and people who are following the news will blame the President because they know it's actually his fucking fault.